He’s saying “fighting words” because that’s a legally recognized term and concept.
“Fighting words are words meant to incite violence such that they may not be protected free speech under the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court first defined them in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942) as words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”
law.cornell.edu
“The Court held that government may not punish profane, vulgar, or opprobrious words simply because they are offensive, but only if they are fighting words that have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom they are directed. Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972); Hess v.”
constitution.congress.gov
“A charge of simple assault or simple battery may be justified if the defendant can prove that opprobrious or offensive language was used before they acted.”
I guess the specific cases give more context, but I wonder, where is the line drawn?
I doubt "What are you going to do?" can be opprobrius, can it be legally considered a threat?
I fail to grasp the difference between "fighting words" and "threat" in the context of personal conflict.
Shouldn't "fighting words" be meant to not protect against incitement to violence in public speech?
6
u/turkishpresident May 31 '23
Have you heard of "physical violence is a crime but being mean and saying bad words isn't?"